Video: Dem Rep booed by constituents over HHS mandate

posted at 10:15 am on February 25, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Rep. Kathy Hochul expected to get some questions on the economy and on gas prices when she met with constituents in New York’s 26th Congressional district last night. Instead, the freshman Democrat got booed by a crowded room over her support for the HHS mandate on contraception and abortifacients, and spent the evening getting an earful from angry voters:

When Hochul spoke in support of the President, the crowd booed. Many in the audience carried signs, including one that read: “Kathy why have you betrayed our Catholic institutions?” One woman in the crowd told Hochul: “This President has lied to us repeatedly when he proclaims support for conscience protection in his infamous speech at Notre Dame as well as in the executive order he signed following passage of the health care law. He is not worthy of your support in this matter.” Another man shouted “It’s an insult to the Catholics in this country to even listen to that gibberish. It is an absolute insult and Catholics deserve better. We were taking care of this country’s sick long before the government got involved in it.”

Pastor Leon Bienart of Our Lady of Pompeii Church also asked Hochul if the President or Congress consulted with Catholic bishops before they issued the policy. Hochul replied that it was a good question and she would try to get an answer. The Congresswoman also replied this way to the questions and criticism “We’re not gonna agree on this one. I’m gonna tell you that I will stand for our religious freedoms. But I don’t see a conflict here. Now that there’s been an accommodation that says religious institutions do not have to provide these services. So we’re just going to have to disagree on that.”

The meeting was heavily publicized on Catholic radio and many Catholic organizations encouraged people to attend and discuss the contraception issue. It was also brought up specifically by Father Beinart during his Mass on February 5th when he criticized President Obama and Congresswoman Hochul.

A week ago or so, Duane Patterson and I got into a debate on my show over the impact of the HHS mandate on Catholic voters. Duane worried that Barack Obama had split Catholic voters, but I reminded Duane that the Catholic vote is always split, and usually tilts slightly towards Democrats. Obama won the Catholic vote by nine points in 2008. What Obama did was unify Catholics — and not just Catholics, either — in opposition to his arrogance. Bishops and priests are organizing opposition to this mandate, and this is just one small measure of the result.

Hochul, it should be remembered, is only in office because of Chris Lee’s virtual tomcatting on Internet dating sites. He resigned when the scandal broke, and Hochul won the special election in an R+6 district one year ago. It was one of the few rays of sunshine for Democrats midway through Obama’s term, but her chances of winning again seem to be dimming substantially in NY-26. This is a small measure of the political miscalculation made by Obama and his administration on the mandate, and perhaps a signal to opponents of the mandate in other districts to follow suit.

Update: This claim from Hochul is categorically false:

“We’re not gonna agree on this one. I’m gonna tell you that I will stand for our religious freedoms. But I don’t see a conflict here. Now that there’s been an accommodation that says religious institutions do not have to provide these services. So we’re just going to have to disagree on that.”

They still have to provide insurance to their employees that includes free contraception and abortifacients. Who pays for the insurance? The religious organizations that get forced to facilitate those transactions, since they can no longer opt out of offering the insurance and must pay a large part of the premiums — and in some cases, the religious organizations self-insure, which means the money comes directly out of their pockets rather than indirectly. Either way, they most certainly still do have to “provide these services.” Hochul either is woefully misinformed or willfully lying to her constituents.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

You can put in your body exactly what you want and no one is stopping you. PAY THE DARN THING FOR YOURSELF and don’t ask anyone else to pick up the tab!

If this is your theory, how do you believe in insurance coverage at all? Its just a privatized system wherein an institution collects a portion of people’s wages (normally through wage garnishments if your employer offers coverage) and then uses those contributions to pay for services. If we just “pay the darn thing for ourselves” then there’d be no need for an insurance company at all.

So the question really is why shouldn’t birth control be part of what insurance companies cover? Women contribute to health insurance plans for viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs and no one ever calls those men “moochers” even though the drugs are for the sole purpose of engaging in an enjoyable sex life. But women who want BC covered in their insurance plans = moochers? No one is fooled.

If this is your theory, how do you believe in insurance coverage at all? Its just a privatized system wherein an institution collects a portion of people’s wages (normally through wage garnishments if your employer offers coverage) and then uses those contributions to pay for services.

It’s also a voluntary association, not a government mandate. If you don’t like an insurance plan, you don’t need to buy it. The HHS mandate forces employers under threat of legal force to provide contraception for free to its employees.

If this is your theory, how do you believe in insurance coverage at all? Its just a privatized system wherein an institution collects a portion of people’s wages (normally through wage garnishments if your employer offers coverage) and then uses those contributions to pay for services.

It’s also a voluntary association, not a government mandate. If you don’t like an insurance plan, you don’t need to buy it. The HHS mandate forces employers under threat of legal force to provide contraception for free to its employees.

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:50 AM

Not only that, Ed. The whole purpose of insurance in the first place is risk management. In any given year, the vast majority of drivers go without having to make a single demand of their auto insurance. It’s not used to pay for routine tune-ups and repairs or even minor fender benders, because when it pays out, premiums go up. It’s there to keep an accident from breaking your (or someone else’s) bank in the event of something catastrophic happening.

It’s also a voluntary association, not a government mandate. If you don’t like an insurance plan, you don’t need to buy it. The HHS mandate forces employers under threat of legal force to provide contraception for free to its employees.

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:50 AM

THey won’t get that.. These are the same people who think that paying taxes is the same as giving to charity, because “people will be helped with taxes.” They don’t realize that individuals controlling their own private business is not the same thing as daddy government controlling them.

This should not be a debate about contraceptives, Catholics or healthcare. The only issue here that matters is the First Amendment to the Constitution and whether we will continue be a free people with a government that derives it’s just powers from the Consent of the Governed or wether we become subjects and slaves.

This should not be a debate about contraceptives, Catholics or healthcare. The only issue here that matters is the First Amendment to the Constitution and whether we will continue be a free people with a government that derives it’s just powers from the Consent of the Governed or wether we become subjects and slaves.

Stephen Macklin on February 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM

It will be a debate about the RCC and contraceptives as long as groups like the RCC think they can set the terms of government health care mandates. “We the People” are stupid, soft, and surrendering our own freedoms.

Once the compromise was made, freshface on February 25, 2012 at 11:27 AM

There was no compromise. Compromise takes two willing participants giving a little. This was just a rephrasing of a one sided edict. Really a tautology just giving another name to the same thing and then claiming to have met the other party half way. The Catholic Church was not consulted initially with the original edict or before the edited edict.

Do not fall for rhetorical change when a real change is what is required.

So the question really is why shouldn’t birth control be part of what insurance companies cover? Women contribute to health insurance plans for viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs and no one ever calls those men “moochers” even though the drugs are for the sole purpose of engaging in an enjoyable sex life. But women who want BC covered in their insurance plans = moochers? No one is fooled.

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:48 AM

You’re deliberately ignoring the moral objection to birth control. That’s the reason why the Church and its institutions can’t participate in insurance plans that cover birth control. No one is stopping women from obtaining birth control or having an insurance plan that covers it. But the government does not have the right to force the Church to violate its own doctrines. Period. And this fight was started by the ObaMao administration, not the Church, not Conservatives and not the GOP. This is not a “war on women” but rather ObaMao’s war on the First Amendment.

So the question really is why shouldn’t birth control be part of what insurance companies cover? Women contribute to health insurance plans for viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs and no one ever calls those men “moochers” even though the drugs are for the sole purpose of engaging in an enjoyable sex life. But women who want BC covered in their insurance plans = moochers?

No one is fooled.

Two points here:
1) I am not aware that the government mandates that an insurance company offer viagra. If it does, this is just as wrong.
2) Nobody is trying to “fool” you. Just because someone has a different point of view than you do, doesn’t mean they are really either greedy or bigots and trying to fool you. This is the liberal explanation for all they don’t understand. Someone must really be either greedy or a bigot because there’s no other explanation possible other than they are a bad person for disagreeing with a liberal. Don’t fall for easy explanations when presented with a diffrent point of view. And you guys talk about nuance all the time? Pffttt….

The Catholic Church was not consulted initially with the original edict or before the edited edict.

Do not fall for rhetorical change when a real change is what is required.

KW64 on February 25, 2012 at 12:01 PM

But you can bet your bottom doubloon that when it’s all said and done, the Catholic Church will STILL be pushing for some kind of health care reform that involves government meddling. It’s what they do.

Gryphon202
What’s happened is the ppl over the last 25,30 years is indoctrination instead of learning. The schools have been overtaken by the liberal teachers who are living in the streets of Kalifornia in the late 60’s.

This should not be a debate about contraceptives, Catholics or healthcare. The only issue here that matters is the First Amendment to the Constitution and whether we will continue be a free people with a government that derives it’s just powers from the Consent of the Governed or wether we become subjects and slaves.

Stephen Macklin on February 25, 2012 at 11:55 AM

Post Of The Year.

Wake up, People, he swore on Lincoln’s Bible to uphold the Constitution. How many of his “acts” can be spun as “upholding” the Constitution?

Gryphon202
What’s happened is the ppl over the last 25,30 years is indoctrination instead of learning. The schools have been overtaken by the liberal teachers who are living in the streets of Kalifornia in the late 60′s.

angrymike on February 25, 2012 at 12:03 PM

I’m 33 years old. I think it’s been longer than that, but you don’t have to tell me twice. Or really even once. ;)

It’s also a voluntary association, not a government mandate. If you don’t like an insurance plan, you don’t need to buy it. The HHS mandate forces employers under threat of legal force to provide contraception for free to its employees.

Ed Morrissey on February 25, 2012 at 11:50 AM

The fact that the state is forcing that coverage speaks to the fact that so few insurance providers were offering those services under their existing plans. Way back in the early aughts women’s advocates were raising the birth control coverage disparity as an example of the way women were being asked to pay for a variety of medicines that are primarily used by men, but were out of luck when it came to birth control coverage. Few women had the ability to just “get another insurance plan” because (as y’all know) of the lack of competition within insurance markets.

Now here’s what is interesting. If the ideal right wing version of the healthcare bill had been passed and the health insurance market had truly been open up to cross state competition would that have solved the problem? What is most likely is that some providers would offer specialized packages for women, but at an extra cost. You might be thinking, “well that’s fine because competition would allow the overall healthcare market to be more affordable.” But would it? No doubt there would be something like the healthcare equivalent of the dollar store or minimum insurance coverage for individuals who don’t own a vehicle. But how effective would those programs actually be? In the case of low cost auto insurance the coverage serves to meet the legal requirement, but has very little to offer if you actually got into an accident. Perhaps ultra low cost insurance would cover emergency room visits, but would it include dental, vision? Low cost health insurance plans currently don’t offer those services. And I might add even “low cost” competitors would have to continually rise in order for those companies to meet the standard of ever rising profit margins, which apparently is the only way for a company to be succeeding these days. Considering that many of the people who would need to use such low cost plans are in jobs where wages have been stagnant, there is a good chance they wouldn’t remain “low cost” forever.

In that environment, how likely is it for low income women to be able to also afford the specialized birth control coverage? Pretty unlikely. The market model would not actually result in more women gaining access to birth control. Sometimes the market model works, but there are certain areas where the state has a vested interest in mandating certain things, and birth control is one of them. Family planning is required for the continuation of modern society. There isn’t enough space for everyone to live like the Duggars on a farm in this country. We need to family plan.

But you can bet your bottom doubloon that when it’s all said and done, the Catholic Church will STILL be pushing for some kind of health care reform that involves government meddling. It’s what they do.

gryphon202 on February 25, 2012 at 12:02 PM

Of course they will… Specially if under Obama & Romney those pesky 1% won’t get any tax brakes to donate to charity’s… U will only have one team in the game… Gov.

teach this bunch that if they want to live in the seventeenth century when it comes to birth control that is their business.

Smedley on February 25, 2012 at 11:14 AM

I’m a conservative, Catholic woman. I really loathe the Catholic bashing from the right when it comes to the birth control issue in general. Clearly, you do not understand the Church’s position on birth control. It is not to turn back the clock to the 17th century. It is a true pro-life position. Stop beating up people on your side. There are plenty of Catholics willing to go into battle against this totalitarian government.

In that environment, how likely is it for low income women to be able to also afford the specialized birth control coverage? Pretty unlikely. The market model would not actually result in more women gaining access to birth control. Sometimes the market model works, but there are certain areas where the state has a vested interest in mandating certain things, and birth control is one of them. Family planning is required for the continuation of modern society. There isn’t enough space for everyone to live like the Duggars on a farm in this country. We need to family plan.

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM

What a tool… We have to kill Americans to save Americans… And the constitution demands that abortions are Free… Never mind what is actually on it… Freedom of Religion/Beliefs just needs to be BS accommodates… But Free contraception/Abortions is a must do for the Gov.

U abort happy pees should just have Abortaton’s for the 3-4 woman that need welfare to not get pregnant…. “For just 50 cents a day u can keep Lusy from having to pay for contraception…. For just the price of a cup of coffee u can stop Lusy from reproducing… Won’t u please donate now…

Sometimes the market model works, but there are certain areas where the state has a vested interest in mandating certain things, and birth control is one of them.
libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Wow…you really are a lunatic, huh? Where are you posting this from? China?

U abort happy pees should just have Abortaton’s for the 3-4 woman that need welfare to not get pregnant…. “For just 50 cents a day u can keep Lusy from having to pay for contraception…. For just the price of a cup of coffee u can stop Lusy from reproducing… Won’t u please donate now…

If this is your theory, how do you believe in insurance coverage at all? Its just a privatized system wherein an institution collects a portion of people’s wages (normally through wage garnishments if your employer offers coverage) and then uses those contributions to pay for services. If we just “pay the darn thing for ourselves” then there’d be no need for an insurance company at all.

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:48 AM

And that’s an option you can follow.

You’ve never worked for a living, have you? Of course not; welfare-addicted Obama Party members like yourself have no experience in the private sector, and thus would know that those so-called “garnishments” are by your choice.

The advocates for birth control mandates, abortion, gay marriage, etc. like to say “If you don’t want to use birth control, have an abortion, or get ‘gay married’ you don’t have to, just leave us alone.

But they aren’t satisfied with being left alone, they insist those who are against these things become accomplices in these acts by paying for them or otherwise taking part in the act, for example, requiring businesses to provide services as part of a gay couples’ marriage ceremony.

In that environment, how likely is it for low income women to be able to also afford the specialized birth control coverage? Pretty unlikely. The market model would not actually result in more women gaining access to birth control. Sometimes the market model works, but there are certain areas where the state has a vested interest in mandating certain things, and birth control is one of them. Family planning is required for the continuation of modern society. There isn’t enough space for everyone to live like the Duggars on a farm in this country. We need to family plan.

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM

So KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER as part of YOUR FAMILY PLAN!

Your argument is laughable. Free clinics abound. Planned Parenthood exists, lives and breaths for the poor women you discuss!
If I don’t want something in MY policy, it is MY choice, not yours to impose on me!

Again you misunderstand the purpose of insurance. The fact that feminists have been agititating for contraceptive coverage does not mean it is a necessary insurable expense. It means that Planned Parenthood wants insurance companies to start paying them inflated prices to dispense it. They provide it free to many women and they would like to make a profit on it so they have more money to spend on political campaigns. There is nothing about insurance that requires fairness between men and women.

And pregnancy is not a disease. It is easily avoidable by not having intercourse when you are fertile. The fact that women and men do not want to be inconvenienced does not make it an insurable expense. Requiring insurance coverage for stuff like this makes premiums go up for everyone.

You’ve never worked for a living, have you? Of course not; welfare-addicted Obama Party members like yourself have no experience in the private sector, and thus would know that those so-called “garnishments” are by your choice.

northdallasthirty on February 25, 2012 at 12:22 PM

I have to give you credit. Few individuals could sustain that level of deranged rage towards total strangers for as long as you have. *slow clap*

There isn’t enough space for everyone to live like the Duggars on a farm in this country. We need to family planabort as many fetuses as possible and you idiot taxpayers need to pick up the dime because your Government and Liberal d*uchebags know better than you.

And here we get to the heart of this anti-contraceptive outrage. It wasn’t a “slip up” when the Santorum backer talked about contraception as women keeping their legs together. This is all about a certain segments desire for women to only have sex within the bounds of heterosexual marriage.

PP only offers free birth control to women under a certain income, the average is around 1700/month. For most women, that is barely a living wage. For those making 1800 or 1900 a month, what are they supposed to do. And besides, isn’t your argument that those places shouldn’t exist at all? The caps tell the full story, this is about controlling sex.

There is nothing about insurance that requires fairness between men and women.

There’s nothing about employment that requires fairness between blacks and whites, but its still illegal for employers to racially discriminate. What insurance is “supposed” to cover is determined like most things in this society, through debate, struggle, disagreement and eventual compromise. It seems you’re mostly upset at the victory of feminists, which also points to the centrality of sexual freedom to the issue, more than anything else.

The sign asks why has she betrayed our Catholic institutions.Frankly, there are enough within the Church who have been doing that for a long time. The Notre Dame scandalous behavior and the funding of ACORN and Obama’s (the most pro-death president in history) election, wuith money donated for the poor. As if any of these Godless socialists are ever going to free the poor from their grasp.
The question might have been, Why have you betrayed God?
Or, Why have you betrayed our religous freedom?
Or, why have you enslaved our consciences?
Or, Why have you forced us to choose beteen mortal sin or our jobs?

So the question really is why shouldn’t birth control be part of what insurance companies cover? Women contribute to health insurance plans for viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs and no one ever calls those men “moochers” even though the drugs are for the sole purpose of engaging in an enjoyable sex life.

So the question really is why shouldn’t birth control be part of what insurance companies cover? Women contribute to health insurance plans for viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs and no one ever calls those men “moochers” even though the drugs are for the sole purpose of engaging in an enjoyable sex life. But women who want BC covered in their insurance plans = moochers? No one is fooled.

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:48 AM hearing

Do you have employer paid health insurance? Many of them offer employee paid options such as dental or eye andcoverage. There is no reason birth control could not be the same. Or are you saying that employers should cover everything? Or are you saying birth control is more important than sight or hearing?
Even Medicare for example does not pay everything. The subscriber has to pay the other coverage they want. If the government is able to do this why not private insurers?

And here we get to the heart of this anti-contraceptive outrage. It wasn’t a “slip up” when the Santorum backer talked about contraception as women keeping their legs together. This is all about a certain segments desire for women to only have sex within the bounds of heterosexual marriage.

For your information, my suggestion TO KEEP YOUR KNEES TOGETHER is a direct quote from my mother!
My mother made it very clear when it came to premarital sex…and she used to tell me, “Pretend you have an aspirin between your knees and don’t let go!”

Mom was not kidding. Her point and position was VERY clear!

What don’t you get?

I am not in favor of paying for those who continue to take $$ out of my wallet or for that matter their neighbors wallet, to pay for their irresponsibility!

Lib – actually, most group healthplans do cover contraceptives. I’m in the business. You really need to get out more.

You have your opinion and are due it as much as I am. but please don’t weigh into areas of fact, over which you obviously have no understanding.

Insurance is the spreading of risk – contraception is weigh down the list, it is offered more as a convenience and nicety than an insured “need”. And it certainly isn’t the only item so offered. But now the govt has mandated that it be covered. Let’s flip the situation.

How would you feel if contraception AND birthing services were illegal to be covered? It is no difference. Neither of these things are illnesses or problems. People gave birth to babies for years and years before the first insurance showed up.

There is no problem with contraception availability or affordability, whether your insurance plan covers it or not. This is just a sop by the Obama-ites to grab more money from their leftwing backers, who apparently aren’t giving at quite the level the One was hoping for. In exchange, he knocked his catholic support down further – he won’t win the group now – which will become critical in Ohio and Pennsylvannia. He has probably lost one for sure now (Ohio), and also puts Michigan in danger coupled with his stupid pipeline decision where the unions aren’t happy.

I am puzzled why he did this – a dumb decision – but apparently fund raising tops everything else for this man child. Perhaps Soros has indicated he is tapped out. One of the worst presidents in US history who has a legitimate chance to win the presidency again.

PP only offers free birth control to women under a certain income, the average is around 1700/month. For most women, that is barely a living wage. For those making 1800 or 1900 a month, what are they supposed to do. And besides, isn’t your argument that those places shouldn’t exist at all? The caps tell the full story, this is about controlling sex.

The solution is FOR YOU TO GO OUT AND FIND ALL THOSE POOR WOMEN AND GIVE THEM THE MONEY THEY NEED!

We were taking care of this country’s sick long before the government got involved in it.

Best line from the quoted article.

rhombus on February 25, 2012 at 11:51 AM

I thought so too,..

The arrogance of Obama and company in thinking they own the entire concept of compassion, the liberal conceit that only “they” care enough to do anything… and then after attempting to kill tax deductions for charitable gifts.

It’s really hard not to see a tyranical maniac in Obama’s eyes.. a guy so full of contempt for differing opinions, he’d just as soon eliminate them entirely.. which this is designed to do.. Devotion and faith mean nothing to a liberal, if they are not his own.

I’d put my money on Christ’s Church here, anything that has survived 2000 years has shown it’s not so easy to roll them for political gain. The rank and file may vote democrat, but really, their natural home is with us.

The conservatives respect them, even when we disagree,.. the liberals?

How many times must the left spit on them before the Catholic rank and file just walks away?

The MSM is carrying this thing as if it was an exclusively Catholic issue. Are there any breathing people who call themselves “Christian” going to mouth out and bitch about this? I don’t hear a peep from other Christian faiths making a stink about this as much as the Catholics do. Don’t other faiths even believe that contraception is an abomination? What about abortion-inducing drugs?
That’s also included in this law.

If I could just pop in here for a minute… I think Viagra is covered by medicare.
As to PP and their pricing of services, it is on a sliding scale. So, if a woman is just above their threshold for free services she then pays a small amount for services. The more money you make the more you pay for services at PP.

It seems that the MSM is carrying this thing as if it was an exclusively Catholic issue. Are there any breathing people who call themselves “Christian” going to mouth out and bitch about this? I don’t hear a peep from other Christian faiths making a stink about this as much as the Catholics do. Don’t other faiths even believe that contraception is an abomination? What about abortion-inducing drugs?

Thanks, Delsa … you’re saving me a lot of typing.
Witcha, sistah !!
Lib FB friends have been reading virtually the same from my keyboard, and just CANNOT grasp the concept.
Rebellion against truth is strong in them .. Very sad.
I pray for them… OY.

Not only that, Ed. The whole purpose of insurance in the first place is risk management. In any given year, the vast majority of drivers go without having to make a single demand of their auto insurance. It’s not used to pay for routine tune-ups and repairs or even minor fender benders, because when it pays out, premiums go up. It’s there to keep an accident from breaking your (or someone else’s) bank in the event of something catastrophic happening.

gryphon202 on February 25, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Thank you. That’s what I wanted to say. You buy insurance in case something does go wrong, you won’t lose all of your assets and have to file for bankruptcy. Its there to protect you.

But how effective would those programs actually be? In the case of low cost auto insurance the coverage serves to meet the legal requirement, but has very little to offer if you actually got into an accident. Perhaps ultra low cost insurance would cover emergency room visits, but would it include dental, vision? Low cost health insurance plans currently don’t offer those services.

Gee, I don’t know – perhaps my 75-year-old single male friend would be able to get a policy that only covers the THINGS THAT HE NEEDS COVERED, much the same way that our family pays for “only liability” coverage on our older cars that are driven by our under-21-year-old daughters.

Why do we do that, and still pay for complete (collision/comprehensive/liability) coverage on the newer cars that my husband and I drive? Simple – because it’s CHEAPER. The younger drivers represent a higher RISK to the insurance company, but it is cheaper to offer them a no-frills policy that will pay damages to the OTHER driver if our kids are at fault in an accident.

INSURANCE isn’t meant to be a maintenance contract, it is a RISK contract. My husband and I are monogamous and we don’t engage in risky behavior – why should we be required to pay for a health insurance policy that covers AIDS medication, lung cancer coverage (neither one of us smokes), drug rehab programs, alcohol rehab programs, etc. (all of which are required to be included in most insurance policies nowadays). Why should we be required to pay for someone else’s sex change operation?

Why should someone who is past the age of child-bearing be required to pay for someone else’s contraception? You want to have sex but don’t want to get pregnant? Fine – just don’t ask ME to subsidize your life CHOICES.

Obamacare is a one-size-fits-all policy, and as such, the cost is going to spiral out of control.

Women contribute to health insurance plans for viagra and other erectile dysfunction drugs and no one ever calls those men “moochers” even though the drugs are for the sole purpose of engaging in an enjoyable sex life. But women who want BC covered in their insurance plans = moochers? No one is fooled.

libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 11:48 AM

Exactly when did the government require health insurance companies to cover ED meds?

There isn’t enough space for everyone to live like the Duggars on a farm in this country. We need to family plan.
libfreeordie on February 25, 2012 at 12:06 PM

Bless your heart – you don’t get out of the city very much, do you, dear?

Ever driven down stretches of I-20, I-30, I-40, etc., IN BETWEEN the major cities? There is PLENTY of unused real estate out there where people don’t live.

All of those towns that have sprung up since this country was founded? It’s because as the population increased, people moved further out from the original population hubs. And guess what? When there were enough people in a new area, a new city was formed. And new schools were built, and new roads were constructed, and new businesses sprang up.

Ask the Chinese how well “family planning” has worked out for them – they now don’t have enough young people to sustain their social network for the elderly. They don’t have enough women for all of the men to marry, due to their “one-child” policy, which is going to end up with that part of the world embroiled in war in the not-too-distant future. They don’t have enough workers to provide services for all of the people, and all of those “only” children never learned the value of family, because they have been catered to their entire life.

But by all means, you liberal women are more than welcome to continue killing your future off and/or limiting the number of children that you have.

In two generations, you will find that you can NEVER sustain your policies and beliefs, because there simply won’t be enough of you left to carry on your legacy. In the meantime, all of us conservatives will go merrily along our way, reproducing like crazy, and taking over the country.

We know it’s part of their jihad to cover the face of the Earth with as many homicide bombers babies as possible, with as many homicide bomber manufacturers wives as possible, so Hussein maybe jumped the gun there.

As usual the law will be applied selectively.. but wait.. I forgot that a good part of their money are going to terrorist organizations killing people, not so much to charitable foundations.. So here they are, “aborting” people by convinction – nothing to see, move along.